168 réponses à ce sujet

[htisscrimbliv]

It uses your own blood, which you need to survive. And a majority of people we've come across use it for wicked purposes. But does that make the magic itself evil? I think not

[thats1evildude]

*Sigh* Time to beat this dead horse again.

Blood magic isn't itself evil, but most of its applications are evil. To paraphrase Dorian:

So let's say you use your blood or that of a willing participant. No harm in that, right? But that only gets you so far. What if you need more power? You ALWAYS need more. That's when you get into human sacrifices and demon summoning.

And then let's consider that we know very little about the nature of blood magic. In the book Last Flight, a Warden used blood magic to empower the griffons so that they would fight harder. Without that ritual, the Archdemon might not have been beaten. So a good was achieved, right?

Spoiler

Except that the spell also ended up creating a magical disease that drove the griffons violently insane. They ended up being killed by each other or by the Wardens themselves.

One could speculate that this was the true cost of the spell. In exchange for ending the Blight, it cost the lives of an entire species, and now the Wardens are severely hampered in their efforts to battle the Archdemon.

Blood magic has never been used to achieve a good end without severe repurcussions. Consider that.

[lynroy]

It is a tool like any other magic. It depends on how that tool is used.

[Ieldra]

*Sigh*

Blood magic isn't itself evil, but most of its applications are evil.

Not even that. Killing someone with blood magic isn't any more or less evil than killing someone with a fireball. I can even imagine circumstances - not all that rare - where mind control is the preferred solution to a problem. Consider, for instance, a hostage scenario.

 

Blood magic is a tool. It only matters what you do with it, and exactly what you do to power it.

[ComedicSociopathy]

Depends. Are you using blood magic to control mind control people or spirits? A lot of people would say that willfully taking away another being's free will is evil. Others would say it's not evil if will leads to some kind of greater good. Then again, may others would say that the ends don't always justify the means and that committing such an act for any reason is evil no matter what.

 

See a pattern here?

 

What is good and evil is subjective and is ultimately decided by a majority that just say what is a good act and what is an evil act. That said, just because an opinion is subjective doesn't mean that it doesn't have well-thought out logic that should be taken into account. 

 

Blood magic is super dangerous because of how it attracts demons, which are beings that could very well be objectively evil, so using it could be seen as an act that will bring about evil, or at the very least horrific consequences. 

[BSpud]

Because Josephine

[Mirrman70]

Blood Magic is "evil magic" because writers decided it is. The Dark Side is the "Evil Force" because George Lucas decided it to be. why do people argue with writers about Lore?

 

 

EDIT: In fact outside the protagonist and companions has there ever been a truly sane Blood Magic user? that wasn't for questionably moral reason?

[Donk]

Are guns evil? Swords? Religion, even?

Anything can be evil, depending on how one uses it.

[Mirrman70]

Are guns evil? Swords? Religion, even?

Anything can be evil, depending on how one uses it.

 

thats not the point of what I said. the point of what I said was that the writers decided it was "evil". that means until they change their minds, the only people who will be unaffected by the "corrupting" effect of Blood Magic are the protagonists and their companions.

[Cute Nug]

If we have learned anything in Dragon Age it's if you see a mage outside your companions mostly then kill it because they will become an evil blood mage, an abomination, or a harvester. Templars and Qunari are thugs and you will most likely need to kill them. They have red dots on the minimap so they are probably some sort of blood mage. Tevinters are generally evil so you are pretty safe to kill them ... cuz they are blood mage slavers I guess. Grey Wardens are now stupid and you might need to attack their fortress first before you can even talk to them ... probably cuz blood magic i guess. Pirates understand the word parley but I guess GWs only understand full army siege.

 

Bears and wolves are probably also blood mages too because they always attack on sight. 

[renfrees]

People argue that blood magic is a tool and can be used for the greater good. Quentin was using it for the greater good (in his eyes, anyway). Could he have done it with guns or swords? No, his purpose was to recreate his dead wife, not to kill Leandra and other women. Guns and swords doesn't allow you to dare reaching that far as he did. Let's take another example - Redcliffe. What if the ritual required sacrifice of the whole village, would it make it justified, since it's for the greater good? Blood magic is always a trade in pain, and the greater the pain - the better results.

[thats1evildude]

To use another example: swords and bows didn't allow Zathrian to create a werewolf curse that lasted for centuries, or for the Baroness to trap her rebelling subjects inside an endless nightmare in the Fade. These atrocities were only possible through blood magic.

[BansheeOwnage]

People argue that blood magic is a tool and can be used for the greater good. Quentin was using it for the greater good (in his eyes, anyway). Could he have done it with guns or swords? No, his purpose was to recreate his dead wife, not to kill Leandra and other women. Guns and swords doesn't allow you to dare reaching that far as he did. Let's take another example - Redcliffe. What if the ritual required sacrifice of the whole village, would it make it justified, since it's for the greater good? Blood magic is always a trade in pain, and the greater the pain - the better results.

Killing multiple people to bring back one person isn't for any greater good, though.

 

To use another example: swords and bows didn't allow Zathrian to create a werewolf curse that lasted for centuroes, or for the Baroness to trap her rebelling subjects inside an endless nightmare in the Fade. These atrocities were only possible through blood magic.

Certain atrocities are only possible because of the advantages of a gun over a sword, too. Or explosives over other weapons.

[TobiTobsen]

I've yet to see a tool that get's more powerful the more violent the pain or death to fuel it was.

[CoM Solaufein]

Its as good or bad as the person who is using it.

[renfrees]

Killing multiple people to bring back one person isn't for any greater good, though.

 

Certain atrocities are only possible because of the advantages of a gun over a sword, too. Or explosives over other weapons.

Greater good isn't just about bringing back one person, but gaining that person's support for Landsmeet to unite Ferelden in stopping the Blight. And in Quentin's case it isn't a greater good because his wife was nobody? What if he tried to bring back some hero, some influential figure that could change the tides - would that be considered "for the greater good" then?

 

Its as good or bad as the person who is using it.

People continue using this excuse, but I beg for example of anything good done with blood magic without disastrous consequences.

[BansheeOwnage]

Solas talks about a healer who used her own blood to fuel her spells.

[renfrees]

Solas talks about a healer who used her own blood to fuel her spells.

Yeah, he doesn't talk about the consequences, though? Aka troubles with accessing the Fade and having to rely on blood magic more and more as a result, or bleeding wounds that don't heal?

[thats1evildude]

Certain atrocities are only possible because of the advantages of a gun over a sword, too. Or explosives over other weapons.

Like what? Swords and guns achieve the same end: they kill. Guns are just better at it.

Only blood magic can create literal monsters that go on to kill others.

[Panda]

I don't think it's evil. It's simply dangerous cause it's powerful, it can corrupt you and it can be used in all kinds of nasty stuff that wouldn't be possible without. That doesn't mean that everyone who uses it is evil and that it can be used for good.

 

Devs seem to be very inconsistent about blood magic in the universe which is bit tiring. In one moment everyone is so against it and even Hawke is strongly against it all of sudden in DAI saying that nothing good can come from it: completely disregarding Merrill, Malcolm and potentially Hawke's own blood magic.

[BansheeOwnage]

Yeah, he doesn't talk about the consequences, though? Aka troubles with accessing the Fade and having to rely on blood magic more and more as a result, or bleeding wounds that don't heal?

Solas doesn't talk about her past that, which is unfortunate as I was curious. But he does talk about it making it harder to access the fade since that's the reason he doesn't use it.

 

Like what? Swords and guns achieve the same end: they kill. Guns are just better at it.

Only blood magic can create literal monsters that go on to kill others.

So? It's not just a question of being better at it, it's being able to do things that the other can't, like kill people at range, leaving them no escape. So you could say that guns are evil because of that.

 

As for the second part, I'm sure there are chemical agents that are extremely useful... and can be used as weapons. That doesn't make them evil either. Anything can be misused.

[Uccio]

Simply put, no. Like so many said so already, it is just a branch of magic which can be used for "evil", or "bad". The applications of blood magic are no more evil than the applications of a sword. There are also "good" applications for blood magic. Mind control? Ask the accused if s/he really is the murderer? Obvious advantage. Life transfer? Can safe someone close to the pc. I am actually waiting for a true Blood Magic spec with multiple spells and abilities in the coming game, if it goes to Tevinter.

[Ieldra]

Blood Magic is "evil magic" because writers decided it is. The Dark Side is the "Evil Force" because George Lucas decided it to be. why do people argue with writers about Lore?

Why? Because it doesn't make any sense. You can't make something evil just by saying it is, you have to demonstrate it using an widely-accepted moral scale. You can posit that the dominant culture of the game world uses a different moral scale than we do, but then you can't expect players to accept it.

 

The thing is, the original concept of blood magic was very likely inspired by medieval notions of the sanctity of the body, that resulted, for instance, in bans on anatomic research in some areas. It's perfectly fine to use that concept in a fictional story, but we've largely outgrown such superstitions, and players of the 21st century can't be expected to go along.

 

They then added some real danger to specific uses of blood magic in order to give the ban against it some weight. That might justify a ban on pragmatic grounds, but still doesn't support the statement "blood magic is evil" for a 21st century mindset. When that didn't work, they added a further retcon in WoT1 that posited that it's actually "pain magic" rather than blood magic. This has been, to this day, ignored by most fans because it doesn't make any sense given what was established in the two games before. In fact, I found this coarse and all too transparent attempt at manipulation insulting.

 

So yes, it was clearly the goal of the writers to anchor "blood magic is evil" in the minds of players. However, that failed, not just because the lore adjustments made little sense, but because in this time and day most somewhat educated people in most parts of the world are generally unwilling to accept the notion of an intrinsic evil in the first place.

 

Independent of this are two aspects:

(1) The game world regards blood magic as evil, as a rule. That's perfectly ok. People believe all kinds of nonsense, and given the very real danger presented by certain applications, it's not all that implausible.

(2) The question of whether a general ban of blood magic is justified. That's not a question of morality, but of pragmatism. After all, very few people think guns are evil, but many countries have very restrictive gun control laws.

[renfrees]

Simply put, no. Like so many said so already, it is just a branch of magic which can be used for "evil", or "bad". The applications of blood magic are no more evil than the applications of a sword. There are also "good" applications for blood magic. Mind control? Ask the accused if s/he really is the murderer? Obvious advantage. Life transfer? Can safe someone close to the pc. I am actually waiting for a true Blood Magic spec with multiple spells and abilities in the coming game, if it goes to Tevinter.

Examples, please. All I see in these threads from blood magic apologists are theories about the good use of blood magic. I have yet to see one in games.

[Uccio]

They then added some real danger to specific uses of blood magic in order to give the ban against it some weight. That might justify a ban on pragmatic grounds, but still doesn't support the statement "blood magic is evil" for a 21st century mindset. When that didn't work, they added a further retcon in WoT2 that posited that it's actually "pain magic" rather than blood magic. This has been, to this day, ignored by most fans because it doesn't make any sense given what was established in the two games before. In fact, I found this coarse and all too transparent attempt at manipulation insulting.

 

This was something I found actually truly annoying. The attempt was so blatantly obvious that it made me grimace. The pain addition was completely useless, it should have been placed already at the start. Now it just looks like manipulation.